Does anybody know of any case law/commissioners decisions in relation to reg. 7 specifically relating to the issue of whether or not a tenancy has been created to take advantage of the benefit system - rather than assessing the commerciality or non commerciality of the occupancy agreement - other than the Manchester CC v Barragrove properties or the Stratford upon Avon cases??

Any help would be much appreciated.

Regards

Thu 30-Dec-04 01:03 PM by shawn

you'll have to cut and paste but it should help you

search results from the cmmrs site

Thanks for the info. much appreciated!

There are many Commissioners decisions on Contrived, but you will probably find that most of the decisions also look at reg 6, and/or other parts of reg 7...

This is because reg 7 (1) (l) (refusal to pay HB on the basis that the tenancy has been created to take advantage of the HB scheme), is almost impossible to prove in itself... the facts needed to prove a tenancy as having been created to take advantage of the HB scheme will often also show the tenancy is non-commercial, (reg 7 (1) (a), or is not legally enforceable (reg 6)).

Whenever I prepare submissions for Local Authority on reg 7 (1) (l), it is always as a "fall back" position, a last resort as it is so difficult to prove 'contrivance' of itself...

To illustrate the difficulties... see CH/3458/2002 paragraph 6 sums it up when it states a tenancy must be created at the outset to take advantage of the scheme... a tenancy can not later become contrived...

The decision is not available on the Commissioner's site, but I can e-mail you a copy, or I can forward to Shawn for publication on this site if needed...

hi -

yes happy to publish if you'd like to email to us - info@rightsnet.org.uk

cheers - shawn

Yes, reg 7 (1)(l)is as you state almost impossible to prove that a tenancy has been created to take advantage of the benefit system which is backed up by the Stratford Upon Avon case. This states that the local authority need to provide some sort of evidence of contrivance (difficult).

Therefore the commissioners case CH/3458/2002 would be helpful, please could you make it avaialable for my perusal.

Your help is much appreciated.

thanks to john @ hbspecialists ... here's the cd -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/CH_3458_02.doc